[tanknetter]

P-51 was used for ground attack in Korea with success.

Depends on how "success" is defined. Fulfilling mission objectives? Yes. At an acceptable attrition rate? No.

The P-51 (reclassed as the F-51 by the time Korea started) was hampered by having a liquid-cooled engine that was highly susceptible to killing damage from ground fire.

The P-47 (F-47) with its air-cooled radial engine would have been a much better option for taking to Korea because it could sustain a lot more damage and still bring itself - and its pilot - home. There are two reasons generally given for why it didn't go. The usual one is that most of the F-47 units were on the US East Coast so there were logistical issues. The conspiratorial one is that the USAF brass wanted high combat attrition numbers for its piston-engined aircraft to justify spending on jets.

One aircraft that truly excelled in Korea in the ground-attack role, but doesn't usually get a lot of mention, was the Marines F7F Tigercat. In fact, about 10-15 years ago there was a study on an aircraft to act as a dedicated escort to the V-22 Osprey (since AH-1s are too slow and AV-8Bs too thirsty and with limited weapons carriage over the distances the Osprey can cover) ... and the recommended solution was an updated F7F.

[MikeSteelBe]

Since the P-47 had the supercharger behind the pilot, wasn’t there an issue with all of the airflow passages getting battle damage?

I guess the plane would still get the pilot home, just with less power.